Taiwan’s Protests Could Mean Trouble With China

Taiwan, the semi-autonomous nation not known for making waves, is erupting over a trade pact with China. Last week, hundreds of student protesters occupied the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s unicameral legislative body, demonstrating against the Guomindang’s (KMT) unilateral passage of a service trade agreement signed last year. According to CNN, protesters successfully blocked riot police from the Legislative Yuan with chairs, and have been seated both in and outside the building, singing, chanting, and holding up signs. Police have since used force to clear the Legislative Yuan, with the prime minister saying that the students were “paralyz[ing] our administrative workings,” according to a New York Times report yesterday.

The pact’s passage breaks the KMT’s promise to collaborate with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), staving off an inevitable conflict with the opposition over the pact. The DPP’s longtime stance is rooted in advocating full Taiwanese independence and dissolving ties with China, with much of its energy expended attacking the KMT for colluding with China against local Taiwanese interests. One of the DPP party slogans is, “sell Taiwan”, implying that the KMT is a cowardly puppet government with no interest in advocating for Taiwanese independence.

One possible outcome of these protests, especially if the trade pact is derailed, is that formal relations across the strait could begin to deteriorate. Damon Linker in The Week speculates that if China were to take Taiwan, it would herald the end of American expansionism in the region. He argues that in spite of written agreements to help Taiwan defend itself, the United States would be unlikely to join in such a war. American neutrality in a hegemon-underdog dispute would bespeak our weakening global image as the world’s national guard, in Linker’s view. While logically sound, this perspective overlooks one important aspect of U.S.-China-Taiwan relations: The United States’s ability to influence Taiwanese relations with China or in the international community was never very strong to begin with.

Eight years before the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act that Linker cites, the United States was unable to prevent Taiwan’s expulsion from the United Nations in spite of strong objections and a counterproposal. It’s also important to remember the distinction between selling Taiwan military equipment and intervening on its behalf. It’s one thing to give your friend a knife, it’s another to come to his aid in a brawl. In the highly unlikely scenario that China invades Taiwan, the United States would be little more than a concerned bystander. It’s not a symptom of America’s weakening presence—our diplomatic ties with Japan and the Philippines are strong, as is our naval presence in the South China sea. It’s just that actively securing Taiwan is not, and never has been, a top priority for the United States.

The trade pact is a step towards maintaining good cross-strait relations, but with public opinion falling in Taiwan, and protests ongoing, further collaborations could be jeopardized. It is clear that President Ma has lost credibility in his own party, and the protests indicate that his mandate among the people is slipping. As one of the few stable and prosperous democracies in the region, this uptick in uncertainty could provide China with a rationale to exert stronger influence over Taiwan in future negotiations. Ma has two years left in his second and final term, and has lost any semblance of influence. In the years of negotiations between Taiwan and China, China has never shifted its stance on “One China”. With an ineffective leader heading up a lame-duck legislature, China might view this as an opportunity to take a more aggressive stance on Taiwan, in hopes of reeling the island back under its control.

Hide 5 comments

5 Responses to Taiwan’s Protests Could Mean Trouble With China

Ten years ago, China had a splendid opportunity to use force against Taiwan without fear of an American response, but did nothing. Whatever it might be that prevents them from using force now, it isn’t fear of the United States. It’s probably the combination of the knowledge that war against Taiwan would be very costly, and the likelihood that even a successful war would only win them a desert.

I disagree strongly with the statement that “[i]n the highly unlikely scenario that China invades Taiwan, the United States would be little more than a concerned bystander.” I agree that the scenario is highly unlikely, but in my lefty peacenik way, I believe the US is entangled by history in the fate of Taiwan. Without offering a blank check, I put Taiwan at the top of a very short list of “Countries Deserving American Military Intervention if Attacked”.

Cliff, not to be rude, but would you encourage your own son to enlist and risk death to prevent mainland China from invading Taiwan? If not, then don’t advocate for other people to lose their children for it. Yes, that’s what it means to say that “Taiwan deserves American military intervention if attacked”: other people’s children will die there, unnecessarily.

Cut Taiwan loose. Repeal our promise to go to war against China to save Taiwan. Boost our sales of advanced weaponry, aircraft, missile-defense systems, etc., to Taiwan so they can better defend themselves, but keep our boys out of there.

Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia had better be enlarging and modernizing their militaries, especially Navy and Air Force. And they’d better get together and unite against China. It’s not our war.

If the US fails Taiwan then the message to the Philipines, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, etc is that a US alliance is worthless.

Taiwan is the Canary in the coal mine.

If the US loses Taiwan, then it loses the South China Sea and so does every other Asian nation to Chinese hegemony.

US influence would back up all the way to Guam or Hawaii.

This is a recipe for war between lesser powers like China/India, China/Russia, China/Japan or bullying between China and Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.

Taiwan may be marginalized but it is but a domino…and if you think Chinese bullying and hubris is concerning now, the hubris with full control of Taiwan and the South China Sea will be volatile.

China doesnt want war because it doesnt have enough hegemony of its neighbors and doesnt have control of South China Sea. Given them that and you may be giving them enough confidence to change them from a docile merchant nation to a hegemonic territorial military threat.

The threats of war over resources and territorial claims in the South China Sea will be mere childs play compared to what will come when China thinks it can win.

“China might view this as an opportunity to take a more aggressive stance on Taiwan, in hopes of reeling the island back under its control.”

I hope not. The Russia / Crimea situation is one thing. A military attempt by mainland China on Taiwan is another altogether.

I agree with Clint.

We have agreed “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character”, and “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”

We’re broke. It’s no time for us to take on any additional commitments to Taiwan.

As for the fear of getting rolled back to Guam and seeing the Chinese ascendant over East Asia: Does our ascendancy in East and Southeast Asia get us any benefits? Anything at all? Does Japan buy rice from the United States, in gratitude for our naval support? Does South Korea buy American cars, in return for stationing troops in their country?

As far as I can tell, the only thing it gets us is liabilities. Oh, sure, there’s that vague sense of alliance and friendship. But if you can’t cash it those chips for tangible benefits, then what’s the point?